neurover_update_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely new trait — that this edits the canvas without triggering a run — but says nothing about what happens on invalid changes or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and then the gating rule; no filler. Slightly denser than necessary only because the sibling routing appears in the same breath as the mutation scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with a free-form nested parameter, no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the routing decision well but leaves the caller guessing at the shape of 'changes'. Adequate to decide whether to call it, thinner on how to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and 'changes' is a free-form nested object, so the description's enumeration of updatable aspects (settings, prompt, position, size) is the only semantic hint for its keys. It gives no format or key details, and workflowId, nodeId and account remain undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Изменить настройки, промт, положение или размер плитки') and brackets the scope with '(без запуска)'. It is clearly distinguishable from prepare_generation, though it does not separate itself from the other per-node mutations such as rename_node or set_text_node.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit precondition ('вызывать только по прямой просьбе пользователя о плитках или полотне') and names the alternative for the common case ('Для обычной генерации — prepare_generation'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.